Exhaust Steam Injectors vs. Elesco / Worthington feed water

Anyone have any input on exhaust steam injectors vs. Elesco or Worthington feed water heaters or Elesco vs. Worthington ?

Curious as to performance, maintenance, economy etc.

Question that deserves discussion! I don't think I have much to contribute, but to get the ball rolling (and provoke people who really know something to post), I'll put in two cents' worth:

1 Cent: The exhaust steam injector was-- assorted sources say-- called the "poor man's feedwater heater." This suggests that it was at least perceived as not being as effective as a "real" feedwater heater. And maybe that it was cheaper (at least in first cost: if it wasn't as good, the savings on purchase price would eventually have been eaten up by higher fuel bills, but as we know from other examples, impoverished railroads often can't make investments that would in the long run save them money!).

Another cent: Just looking at locomotive pictures, I have the impression that the Worthington (open type) increased market share at the expense of Elesco over time. Elesco (and, aso closed type, Coffin) feedwater heaters are typical of locomotives from the 1920s, Worthingtons seem to be much more common on locomotives from the late 1930s on. Which could be just fashion or effective advertising by Worthington, but which I would hope reflected real facts about relative cost-effectiveness: enough railroads tried out multiple feedwater heater types that there must have been some comparative data available! (Or: what do you suppose Master Mechanics/Chief Mechanical Officers talked about when they met each other?)

Allen Hazen wrote: The exhaust steam injector was-- assorted sources say-- called the "poor man's feedwater heater." This suggests that it was at least perceived as not being as effective as a "real" feedwater heater. And maybe that it was cheaper (at least in first cost: if it wasn't as good, the savings on purchase price would eventually have been eaten up by higher fuel bills, but as we know from other examples, impoverished railroads often can't make investments that would in the long run save them money!).

Well, eeer, hmm. no!
The exhaust steam injector does no need realy more fuel, well the temperatures reached by it was lower than on live steam injectors, but for the preheating it was only minor.
155° F to 175°F on life steam and only 130° F to 167° F on exhaust type injectors. Also the did not 'suck' life steam, the reused exhaust steam, and thus the steam abandoned in the air was lead back to the boiler, which made it very economical, so the the more fuel for more temperature difference does not realy wage... Also they were much more efficent on running, because they had triggers which made them self-adjusting to the exhaust, so with more exhaust, more water was delivered to the boiler, which was very good.
The backdraws were more the long pipes from the exhaust blast nozzle back to the drivers cab,which lead in stream and condensation losses, which resulted often in improper starting performance, also the injectores very huge, sometimes triple the size of a life steam injektor.
Also exhaust steam contains oil, which those injectors feed very well back to the boiler, leading to priming and foaming.

Which could be just fashion or effective advertising by Worthington, but which I would hope reflected real facts about relative cost-effectiveness: enough railroads tried out multiple feedwater heater types that there must have been some comparative data available! (Or: what do you suppose Master Mechanics/Chief Mechanical Officers talked about when they met each other?)

Yes, also in germany and many other european countries different feedwater heaters were tested, and also many different open type versions exist.
I wonder, that you in america don't have books on steam locomotive technology, we in Germany have many and so the different types are very good explained and shown n compareable pictures.
Usually, from my knowledge, a feedwater heater was not used of advertising, it was used of less maintainance and thus less costs.
A full designed close type feedwater heater will have more seals, needs regulary washouts to remove the slush ans scales, the small convector tubes have to get changed or resealed.... but it has a awesome perfomance in feedwater heating, often much better than the open type versions.

Open type feedwater heater have very easy maintainace doors, to remove slush and scalce in simplify the washout, with less complicated seals. Also the heat tranfer comes often in a single 'box' so there are no clog-able tubes which need to be cleaned or resealed....
Simple and cheap in maintainace, this was the fact of open type feedwater heaters...

So what's he best? Sure! Do it in stages. Have first a open type feedwater heater... here the first scales and slush will occur and can easily get removed from the feedwater. Now, without any pressure the feedwater pumps takes the hot water from the reservoir at the open type feedwater heater and pushes it right trought the close type feedwater heater. Because now it contains less minerals, so less scale will biuld up and less temperature chances won't make the convecor tube set trouble, and because of being able to widstand boiler pressure, you can heat up the steam to over 250° F and feed right into the boiler...
But consider now the maintainance costs....
And those maintainance cost were the thing the master mechanics and mechanical officers talk about: How long does it need to fix? How much material I need, how many people do I need for.. all this only descibes cost factors... Less time, less material and lees workes result in less maintainance costs... and that's the realy reason for many things, also in steam locomotives in the past.